|
Yale University Library
Service Quality
Improvement Council
Bibliographic Access Group
Minutes for the meeting of February 26, 2002
SML 409, 10-11:30
Present: S. Arakawa, N. Bouché, Chair (recorder), S. Crockford-Peters,
T. Nellhaus, R. Richie, J. Swanekamp
Absent: Kalee Sprague
1. The minutes of the meeting of February 19 (Richie) were approved
with minor emendation. NLB reminded the group that in future, she will
see that final copies of minutes are forwarded for posting to the SQIC/BAG
web site, to ensure standard formatting of BAG minutes.
2. NLB announced that contrary to an earlier announcement, the group
will meet on March 19.
· NLB also announced that Audrey Novak has been in touch concerning
the outstanding $k and labels issue, which NLB contacted AN about in
January. AN has promised to get back to her (NLB) in the near future.
· Joan Swanekamp distributed a list of obsolete MARC fields and
the handling decisions that were made for them in the Yale catalog (e.g.,
MARC 755 now obsolete and former contents merged into MARC 655)
3. Catalog Management Policy for Missing Material - Nicole distributed
the most recent draft of the summary document BAG is preparing for SQIC
and asked that BAG members read it and send their comments, corrections,
etc., to her directly. Some specific factual details need to be filled
in as well, and she asked that those who have the necessary details
at hand fill them in. Once she gets comments from everyone, she will
see where things stand and report back to the group. The goal is to
try to get this completed within the next two weeks. SCP asked for an
online copy of what was distributed at the meeting, and NLB said she
would send it out to the group.
4. Kerberized Telnet- NLB reported that she put in a call to Fred Martz
for guidance on how to bring this matter to closure, now that BAG has
signed off on the new setup and has drafted a plan for implementation.
She will report back to the group when she hears back from F. Martz
5. OPAC Implementation: Record display labels: We completed the review
of the OPAC labels document from the OPAC Implementation Group. To date,
the BAG has not heard back from the Implementation Group about our initial
set of comments (submitted to Ellen Cordes, Chair of the OPAC Implementation
Group, after our meeting last week.)
The group agreed that next week it will look at examples online, in
the test OPAC, to clarify our outstanding questions about the following,
at least:
· how the OPAC Implementation Group proposes labeling and listing
various forms of titles (Title, Uniform Title, and Alternate/variant
titles)
· where Holdings display in the Brief display
· what hypertext links are being provided for
NLB will ask C. Zapata to set up the PC in SML 409 for our meeting
next week. She will also ask the OPAC group if they have specific examples
that illustrate well how titles will display. Also pending from the
OPAC group is a list of ALL labels they propose using (not just the
list of labels "in doubt" that they provided to BAG earlier),
and information about how they are defining the indexes.
We confirmed our findings from last week on a number of labels we discussed
and decided on at that time. We also discussed (and largely agreed)
with a set of comments submitted by Steven Arakawa on a number of fields
that the group had deferred last week for further review.
Fields specifically discussed and decided on this week included:
· we confirmed that we cannot judge the proposals for the 130
until we see examples.
· We confirmed that we need clarification from the OPAC group
in their notes for the 530 before we can discuss it further
· 780, 785: We are asking for clarification from the OPAC Implementation
Group as to why they appear to have deferred in each case to the labeling
used in the books format, when in fact these fields rarely, if ever,
are used in monographs cataloging. BAG members think the labeling used
should be that appropriate to serials cataloging: in most cases, these
are the records in which these fields have been, and will be used.
· 511: We discussed the proposed generic label PERFORMERS, and
agreed that where first indicator 1 is used, the OPAC display should
use the more specific label CAST, as provided for in MARC 21. For anything
cataloged with a first indicator of 0, the group agreed that PERFORMERS
was acceptable for now: in most cases in which the field has been used
in Yale records (musical audio recordings) the term is most appropriate.
Some members expressed concern that the term PERFORMERS is not as good
a match in other instances (narrators, commentators, etc.), but the
group agreed that for now PERFORMERS would be OK. If the library starts
cataloging significant amounts of material for which the term is less
appropriate, the text of the label can always be revisited
· 510: The group agreed that the label CITATION/REFERENCES is
better than Access and Use, noting that from the document the OPAC Implementation
Group provided to us, it's not entirely clear just what their intended
label for the field is.
· 538: The group agreed that SYSTEM DETAILS (as provided for
in MARC 21) is a far more appropriate label text than NOTES (as proposed
by the OPAC Group), given the MARC 21 definition of the field, and the
likelihood that over time an increasing number of items will be cataloged
at Yale for which the field applies.
· 351: The group concurred with the OPAC Group's choice of Organization
rather than Arrangement for the label
· 255/507: The group noted that 507 is only to be used for pre-AACR
2 cataloging, and that for the 507 only the label SCALE is appropriate
and should be so defined. The group also agreed, however, that SCALE
is not appropriate for use with MARC field 255: it is too narrow a term
relative to the MARC 21 definition of the field. The GIS project just
getting underway, for example, will introduce records into the OPAC
that will contain valid information in the 255 for which the term SCALE
will not be correct. The group recommends that the label for 255 be
defined as CARTOGRAPHIC DATA (adapted from the MARC 21 field title.)
· 506/540: The group discussed the MARC 21 definitions and related
use of these two fields re restrictions/terms of access and use for
materials. Some members of the group suggested that "Usage"
rather than "Use" might be clearer to some users. The group
settled on ACCESS AND USE for now, as provided for the MARC 21 and Hensen's
Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM).
There was also some discussion about under whose jurisdiction final
determination of these labels falls. It was suggested that if there
is a conflict, the Migration Management Group may be the correct forum
to make a final decision. NLB wonders if SQIC doesn't think the call
would be BAG's. In any case, we decided to proceed on the assumption
that BAG and the OPAC Implementation Group, in all likelihood, will
be able to work these issues out between themselves, and not require
recourse to a higher authority.
We also discussed points 3.1 and 3.2 in the OPAC Implementation Group's
document.
· For 3.1, we have tentatively agreed with the decision to move
Variant and related title display up in the OPAC display, subject to
a final review of the labeling conventions they propose adopting for
the various forms of titles. It will also depend on how they indicators
are used.
· On 3.2, we agreed that the inclusion of Subjects in the Brief
display is a useful feature, and that the display of long runs of subject
terms at the end of the record, in the case of AMC records, poses no
problem.
NLB agreed to update the Excel file BAG has used to compile its comments
on these field labels, and forward it to the OPAC Implementation Group
chair, as well as sending a copy to BAG members. We hope to have some
feedback from the OPAC group by next week, so that we can finalize our
discussions on these points.
NEXT MEETING: March 5, 2002, (recorder: Kalee Sprague), 409 SML, 10:00
- 11:30
Respectfully submitted
Nicole Bouché
©
2001 Yale University Library.
Last modified 12 March 2002.
Send comments about this web site to the library web administrator at
Library Administrative Services.
This file is located at http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC
|
